malazanfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Egwene of the Malazan Empire
='Please leave a message and I'll get back to you as soon as I can :-)'= Status from Toc Nice for me to be back. I keep shadowing the Recent changes page. Wish I could do more. I'll probably make a push for 5000 pages in the next few days (starting after the next week). Nice to hear from you too, Egwene.Toctheyounger (talk) 07:37, January 5, 2018 (UTC) Message from CN Thanks for adding Laseen to her page. I tried to do it but I just got a loading screen. Corporal Nobbs (talk) 07:05, January 11, 2018 (UTC) Corporal Nobbs I'm not sure if I'm replying to this in the right place. I do normally upload straight to the page. It was fairly simple actually. Click the edit button, find the 'add image' button and upload. It put the image straight on the page and I placed it where-ever by dragging it around the screen with the cursor. Could resize and edit text as well. I had a look at the monobook version. Looks complicated as hell to me :s. If the other way doesn't work for me anymore I'll just upload the same way as I did the Laseen pic. If a get a bit of time sometime, I'll have a proper look and try to sort it out. The convo on the dA page about Laseen is weird to me.:) They have finished the whole series and never looked for art. I went looking for art half way through my first read of GotM :D It's the only reason I joined the forum actually, I couldn't see the art without joining for some reason Corporal Nobbs (talk) 13:24, January 11, 2018 (UTC)Corporal Nobbs Coding is a total and complete mystery to me... it may as well be magic as far as I'm concerned :) I'll take a look at the cheatsheet. Just a matter a sitting down and learning it I guess. ...*topples over from gentle nudge*... ;) I have made a couple of starts on Mallet, but I think the problem is, I've never really had a good image of him in my mind to finish him. Never even contemplated doing one of Aimless I always forget who he is until I'm actually reading the bit he's in¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Corporal Nobbs (talk) 09:00, January 12, 2018 (UTC)Corporal Nobbs Laseen by CN We actually never used the category Fan art spoiler free for images, only for the fan art categories. The only image we have currently in this category is Ben + Kalam by Shadaan for some reason ^^ Coltaine (talk) 23:25, January 11, 2018 (UTC) I guess it would be good to have the images of the new readers category also in GotM. Maybe we should also have a look at the images in both categories and just add on or two portraits for each of the main characters to the new reader one, so that someone who has just started the book can get visualize them. Currently the content of the category looks a bit random. Coltaine (talk) 22:10, January 12, 2018 (UTC) Message from Greatguns Thank you Egwene. Just getting my feet wet. I find this WIKI particularly helpful, but descriptions sometimes can be very vague. I appreciate your help making my addition more useful. Greatguns (talk) 23:03, January 15, 2018 (UTC) Re:The mega DP Hi Egwene! I'm back after after being tied up dealing with this and that - nothing dire, but personal things that had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I had a look at your "work page" for the mega DP...I think it's a great start to be going on with. I'll be working on a couple of the entries listed there as I complete working on DoD pages. I feel like I've gotten so far behind - I'd hoped that I would have been able to be much further along with DoD at this point (*sigh*). Well, like everything else, I'll just have to take it day by day until everything is "done"... Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 02:04, January 16, 2018 (UTC) Re:the proposed new "Spoiler" default system Hi, Egwene: I have looked over the forum thread and it looks, in general, like a good idea. It will be especially helpful for people like me who have a bit of a "tin ear" where possible spoilers are concerned. I put the word Spoiler in the subject/headline space in quotes because I did get the point that the system is not specifically meant to deal with spoilers (as such) but rather so that editors, etc. don't NEED to worry about them! I can see that it will be helpful to all the people who check over new articles or new additions to existing articles - I know that you, in particular, are concerned with keeping malazan.wiki safe for new users with regard to possible spoilers : ) ::Oh, BTW, in regard to the "mega DP" red Akrynnai Emissary entry, I was planning on doing a "Unnamed Character" treatment of it in the next few days (unless you've already done something with it - if so, just let me know). Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 04:12, January 17, 2018 (UTC) Re: K'ryn/Kryn Hi Egwene: thanks for cleaning up the K'ryn/Kryn situation : ) As it happens, what you did was exactly what I was hoping you (or whoever) would do - I had intentionally put my 'proof' citations in a square bracketed, easily removable, section at the top. Don't worry, if you had not spotted the "K'ryn" edit in a day or so, I would certainly have brought it to your attention. I was unsure of exactly what to do about it on my own because the 'renaming' wasn't a simple original "K'ryn" ---> "Kryn" one (which I could have handled), but rather an UNdoing of a previous 'renaming' from "Kryn" ---> "K'ryn". I was both uncertain of (1) how to undo an already renamed page name, and (2) I was particularly uncertain if there might not have been a legitimate reason (unknown to me) for the initial renaming, which required adding the apostrophe to "Kryn" in the first place. I've been really impressed (although not at all surprised) at the magnitude and quality of the editing that you've been doing lately - GREAT WORK!! Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 02:06, January 27, 2018 (UTC) Re: Book editions Hi Egwene: I changed your use of "UK lg. PB" to "UK TPB" because I assumed that you were referencing the Bantam large-size paperback which in the Malazan Wiki:Manual of Style's "Standard abbreviations"/"Bantam" section is referred to as "UK TPB". The Malazan Wiki:Manual of Style gives three choices for Bantam editions (which is the publisher - according to the Manual - signaled by the use of "UK"): * "UK HC" is to be used for the Bantam 'Hardcover' editions (I'm aware that you tend to use "UK HB", following British usage, and I would never change that) * "UK MMPB" is to be used for the Bantam 'Mass-market Paperback' (which is the term used - at least in the US - to describe small-format paperback editions about the size of a typical Penguin paperback) * "UK TPB" is to be used for the Bantam 'Trade Paperback' (which is the term used - at least in the US - to describe large-format editions the size of a typical HC/HB but which has heavy PAPER covers instead of HARD covers) Since I've rarely seen the usage "UK TPB" used in malazan.wiki citations, I've often wondered if people were using "UK MMPB" for both the UK Mass-market AND the UK Trade Paperback editions - or whether, instead, the British don't, in fact, produce "trade paperback" editions at all. TPB's are extremely common in the US - conveniently, the TOR US hardcovers and the TOR US trade paperbacks have the SAME pagination. US Mass-market paperbacks, because of their much smaller size, have very different pagination than the US HC/US TPB editions - reflecting their significantly larger number of pages. I've always wondered if the same was true (or not) for Bantam/UK MMPB editions as well. That was my reasoning, anyway...if you think that "UK lg. PB" best describes the edition that you were actually citing from, then please change it back. Sorry for the confusion, Pcwrcw (talk) 02:35, February 5, 2018 (UTC) ::Hi Egwene: Thanks for getting back to me re: UK paperback book edition nomenclature. In the meanwhile I had emailed an English friend - Charles Noad - who is a freelance proofreader/copy editor living in London to see if he could clear up some of the confusion about UK paperback editions. What he had to say made it pretty clear (1) why there is confusion, and (2) that the "Malazan Wiki:Manual of Style" info about UK paperbacks doesn't really seem to reflect actual UK usage. I quote Charles: :::"We UK generally refer to mass-market paperbacks as 'A-format', and to their larger cousins (your US 'trade paperbacks', I think) as 'B-format', but here B-format properly refers to paperbacks of about 5" by 8" in size. Most paperbacks these days are in B-format, which is a pity as I prefer the compactness of the A-format. Every so often one comes across softcover books larger than B-format, and these are, indeed, usually the same as the hardcover original (if there was one) but issued in soft covers. I don't know that these editions have a special name. Possibly they might be called 'trade paperbacks' within the bookseller trade, but I don't know that is actually the case." ::Egwene, I think your advice that if one does change the edition-type in editing, that "it is probably best to change refs completely to that of the copy you have in front of you to make sure the pagination is correct" is by far the best approach. It's a simple solution to the 'problem', but it had never occurred to me - I have always gone out of my way to preserve original citations, unless I was sure they were incorrect. Thanks for the suggestion : ) Since the citations with regard to chapter are independent of the actual edition used, that's really the most important thing! Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 02:27, February 6, 2018 (UTC) Re: Malazan Wiki:Polls Hi Egwene: Yes, I have seen the 'Polls' about malazan.wiki usage. Although I was the second person to fill it out (right after you, I assume), I hadn't seen the latest results. They are interesting, aren't they? I would never have thought that there was such a large percentage of users using mobile phones for access - it's a good thing that you (and JR?) have been working so hard to make using mobiles for malazan.wiki access user-friendly! I'm also amazed that more people haven't switched to Monobook. Aside from the lack of ads, I find Monobook much easier (and far more intuitive) to use, especially when editing. It's great to see that so many people (almost 80 so far) took the time to take the polls - it gives some idea as to how many people are seriously involved with the wiki : ) Pcwrcw (talk) 01:43, February 8, 2018 (UTC) Re: The mega DP - A, B, C, D Discussion transferred to Mega DP discussion page Undead Fourteen Different topic - I've been working on 'The Fourteen Undead Jaghut' in DoD and tCG and I'm not sure how to handle the ones which have major material in both the MBotF AND in the Kharkanas series - the articles on Varandas and Haut are examples. It's confusing for a variety of reasons, but the fact that the character details can be so disconcertingly different, both in particulars and in general, is of concern to me. I know we have any number of articles on characters who appear in both series (think of Anomander Rake), but it seems to be different in some way - perhaps because we have been told so little of substance about the undead Jaghuts. I've even been toying with the idea of suggesting that we have separate articles (with the Jaghut's name followed by an 'identifier' of some sort in brackets) for each of these particular Jaghuts - one article for the ones who appear (alive) in the Kharkanas books and a different article for who appear in DD and CG as 'The Undead Fourteen' in the MBotF. Any thoughts? Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 02:45, February 8, 2018 (UTC) ::Hi Egwene: I've decided to let the Barghast stew in their own juices for a bit and work on sorting out the Fourteen Undead Jaghuts for the time being. I plan on doing a major revision, mainly adding material from DoD and CG, of the joint page (The Fourteen Undead Jaghut page) and to edit the individual pages for the Undead Jaghuts so that they are treated in a consistent fashion. This will have the advantage of taking care of both the 'red' DD/CG ExtDPs entries and the 'red' 'Mega DP' entries for the the named undead Jaghuts. ::BTW, I noticed that in the 'Mega DP' under 'B' that you have 'Bolirium' listed twice - once as " Bolirium, a Jaghut, one of Hood's fourteen "- and right under it - as " Bolirium, a Jaghut, one of 'The Fourteen' ". The first 'Mega DP' entry is found in the FoL ExtDP and the second in the tCG ExtDP - had you meant to separate the two? My guess is that you didn't. I also think that references specifically to the 'The Fourteen' referred to in the 'Mega DP' (when they apply to their appearance in DoD and tCG) should be expanded to 'The Fourteen Undead Jaghut' to minimize confusion with the FoL's "Hood's fourteen". I can take care of all that as I finish producing the 'Undead Fourteen' material and go on to adjust the 'Mega DP' entries if you like. You'll have a chance to check over my work as I go along and can then decide if you want to handle things differently with regard to these particular Jaghuts. Pcwrcw (talk) 01:44, February 11, 2018 (UTC) Death Toll table Hello, Egwene. I had noticed that, though the page is hopefully going to be a death toll for the whole series, there was no section that added up all the deaths. I started working on a table that would do so (it would have sums of all deaths in each category, all deaths in each book, then the grand total) and testing on my user page. However, I realized that a change in formatting of that magnitude is probably something I should check with you or the other admins first. My coding skills aren't that great (I just started learning html a few days ago), and I'm starting to wonder if it would be better visually and/or in terms of editing accessibility to just place the sums vertically instead of creating a table - that is, if they should be included on the page at all with only two books done. I figured I ought to ask before making any further changes or performing any further testing. Feel free to make changes to the table if you want, if you want changes made but don't have time to implement them due to the work on the Mega DP (which, by the way, looks great) I'll try to implement them. Thanks, Marl Karx (talk) 19:00, February 14, 2018 (UTC) Re: editing The Fourteen Undead Jaghut Hi Egwene: Thanks for the helpful suggestions about "what to add and what not". As I've mentioned before, I sometimes get lost in the details. One of the hardest things for me to do when editing is keeping things as concise as possible - something I'm often not very good at. I also tend to get overly involved with material that is really tangential to the article that I'm actually working on. I'll try harder to keep your advice in mind : ) far as the 'Mega DP' goes, I like the idea of either collapsers or separate pages - whichever one seems best (easiest to do/use) to you. I can't think of any other alternatives, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any. If I get a brainstorm, I'll let you know. Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 02:20, February 16, 2018 (UTC) DP All Nice work on the list! Any chance of putting a tally number on it when complete? (Although it would be a pain to keep the total accurately updated).--ArchieVist (talk) 19:43, February 16, 2018 (UTC) :There was a time when people on /r/Malazan would frequently ask how many characters there were. Now we can say with authority that there are clearly 2,500 (or whatever), as anyone knows.--ArchieVist (talk) 20:05, February 16, 2018 (UTC) Well how about telling new readers there's 2,500 characters, but you really only need to keep track of 600 of them. Would that work? Ha. I'll admit I kind of like the idea of scrolling through a majestic and endless list. It might be good to replace the automated contents window with a handcrafted more horizontal box of A-Z links at the top. Something similar to what's used on the Adopt a Chapter page but more compact, not a single line into infinity.--ArchieVist (talk) 21:11, February 16, 2018 (UTC) :I'd say put the K&B books in as well as Goats of Glory. And Scratch. It's going to be the "complete" list, and you never know who might pop up in a later book (however doubtful).--ArchieVist (talk) 20:11, February 24, 2018 (UTC) DHL Are you talking about the Demidrek? It's a title mentioned in a few places in the main series. I only put Ithell's name on there because I didn't think it was much of a spoiler that wasn't already in the book's DP. I can take it out if it goes too far. I don't have any strong feelings on keeping or lifting the freeze. Likely only one of our inspired and hardcore contributors would make any updates. Dancer's Lament and Fall of Light coverage is still pretty barren over a year later.(insert frowny emoticon)--ArchieVist (talk) 20:21, February 16, 2018 (UTC) :Unless you're dying to work on it, I'd just leave the moratorium as is. if nothing else, it forces us to continue working on the older material.--ArchieVist (talk) 21:11, February 16, 2018 (UTC) The bar looks good. Are you going to put something on the end of it for the unnamed characters?--ArchieVist (talk) 19:41, February 17, 2018 (UTC) Re: Aren treasurer Hi Egwene: I just posted the following on AV's User talk page: ::AV: Sorry about the kerfuffle re: "Aren treasurer" - my fault. I was going down the UNC "A" list of the 'Mega DP' adding book abbreviations and noticed the entry for [[Aren treasurer]. Thinking (obviously not too clearly) that it was missing the " Unnamed characters# " part of an UNC entry, I added it and also added an entry to the DG's UNC section as well as I thought it was also missing. It was only earlier today that the penny finally dropped and I realized that since it hadn't been a 'red' entry, then it must have had its own page. Fortunately, Egwene has stepped in and explained/handled things. Sorry about the confusion.] I'm sorry about taking up your time with my mistakes, but thanks for setting everything right. Pcwrcw (talk) 01:31, February 19, 2018 (UTC) RE: Aimanan and the others Hi Egwene: I've read all your notes re: 'The Fourteen Jaghut' carefully and I've edited four articles (to begin with) which (hopefully) address all of your concerns: * Hood's Fourteen - which is now a simple article dealing with the term by itself with all possible Spoilers (I think) removed. * Aimanan - which no longer has any separate explanatory notes. Since I only removed material, this shouldn't affect the page's 'Spoiler Icon' status. * Bolirium - (as an example) to see if I can implement all your suggestions on my own. * The Fourteen Undead Jaghut - the 'main' (and now only) article dealing with 'The Fourteen Undead Jaghut' as a group. I thought I'd do these four articles and run them past you to see if I've missed anything that you think should still be changed. Let me know if they're OK (or not). When I get the go-ahead, I'll edit the remaining individual Jaghut pages as well. This is, by far, the most complex project (not counting my various book ExtDPs, of course) that I've taken on and it has proved a real learning experience. Thanks very much for all your help and patience with me as I've been stumbling through the process. I'll see if I can handle the FD & FL material acceptably, bearing in mind what you've suggested so far...be sure to let me know if I don't : ) ::been making very good progress working through the 'A' section of the 'Mega DP'! Actually, I did know that Ammanas was at least mentioned, in one way or another, in all the MBotF books, but I hadn't realized the same was true for the ICE books. I guess we'll find out as the rest of the alphabet is dealt with if that is true for any other character(s) or not. Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 02:38, February 25, 2018 (UTC) :::Hi Egwene: Thanks for adding the 'Alias Template' for Hood's Fourteen...the Template should prove to be very useful in any number of situations - now that I know how to do one : ) Given your response to my re-workings (so far), I'll proceed with editing the remaining individual Jaghut. Ad astra per aspera, Pcwrcw (talk) 01:57, February 26, 2018 (UTC) Gorim's sister I had a DD excerpt with the info I thought I needed, and it seemed self contained and not too difficult even considering I hadn't read the book in a while. But after finishing the article and doing another read for accuracy, I realized I had completely misread the text and would need to take a wider look at the chapter. That was too much to do for something I thought would be quick and easy.--ArchieVist (talk) 23:52, February 26, 2018 (UTC) :Thanks for taking care of this!--ArchieVist (talk) 16:00, February 27, 2018 (UTC) Re: including Jaghut Odhan in the main text Hi Egwene: OK, I'll include the location, Jaghut Odhan, in the main text of the FD and FL sections of the 'fourteen Jaghut' material. I've made the change for Haut now and I'll go on to make the changes in the other individual Jaghuts' pages when I next edit them - rather than changing just that part for each of them right now. You didn't mention the location header, "In the Wastelands of Lether:" currently in place for the DD and CG sections. Were they OK? I've taken them out for Haut (and Varandas), but if possible, I would prefer to use them as they were. Let me know. Thanks, Pcwrcw (talk) 01:44, March 3, 2018 (UTC) ::Note: after editing Haut and Varandas and incorporating the location info into the individual sections, I find that I like them just fine that way! So rather than using the location headers as I did to begin with, I'll change all the other associated articles of the 'fourteen Jaghut' to match them. As I said before, I'll wait to do that editing until the next time I edit the other articles (which will be presently) - unless you think they all need to be changed as soon as possible. Let me know if Haut and Varandas look OK (or not) so far. Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 04:36, March 3, 2018 (UTC) 19 to go I saw that, but I think my burst of new article productivity is over. There was lots of low hanging fruit. We'll get there soon, though.--ArchieVist (talk) 19:40, March 4, 2018 (UTC) :Also keep in mind it's really only 18 to go as number 19 will be the 5000 article!--ArchieVist (talk) 20:32, March 4, 2018 (UTC) I will insist that you or one of our other regulars create 5000. I've done 3000 and 4000. It's time to give someone else a shot!--ArchieVist (talk) 20:35, March 9, 2018 (UTC) :We're at 4998. Time to create 1 new entry and then 5000!--ArchieVist (talk) 03:36, March 10, 2018 (UTC) Redirects don't count towards the article total. I was wondering why you stopped at 4999!--ArchieVist (talk) 17:44, March 10, 2018 (UTC) But wait, "Malazan Wiki" articles don't seem to add to the count either!--ArchieVist (talk) 17:47, March 10, 2018 (UTC) :Hooray on 5000! I just created another new article so only 999 to go until 6000.--ArchieVist (talk) 18:11, March 10, 2018 (UTC) Re: Brackets Hi Egwene: I take your point about my overuse of unnecessary brackets and my including 'extraneous' information in my edits. I'll do my best to follow your suggestions : ) This is all part of my general problem of extreme 'wordiness' - I am making progress with that. You should see some of my rough drafts - a great deal does end up on the cutting-room floor - as hard as that might be to imagine! I've edited out stray brackets and extraneous info in my recent edits. I'll try to correct earlier pages as I have occasion to visit them. Thanks for taking the time to spell out what my problems are and to suggest solutions for them. Still searching for that golden mean, Pcwrcw (talk) 03:49, March 9, 2018 (UTC) ::Hi Egwene: Thanks for the link to "Tony1's" Redundancy exercises - I'll give the exercises a whirl and see how I get on. ::BTW, I think AV's idea of having you do the 5000th malazan.wiki page is a GREAT one - you definitely deserve the honor! Pcwrcw (talk) 02:26, March 10, 2018 (UTC) : ) Minor corrections If I'm recalling the instance correctly, its probably a case where someone had something like Elder God on the page. It doesn't make sense to me to clutter up the code if a perfectly good redirect is there. Otherwise, why have them?--ArchieVist (talk) 22:25, March 18, 2018 (UTC) :I dunno. That seems like a pain in the butt. See also this Wikipedia note about redirects and pipes. --ArchieVist (talk) 12:22, March 19, 2018 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't think I can help on the use of the Visual Editor. I do all my edits in Oasis, but the default preferred editor in my profile was always Source Editor. From what I can tell, this is pretty much identical with the Monobook editor. It's straight text and symbols. I've seen the Visual Editor from time to time when I've been unknowingly logged out and tried to edit. But I've never been able to make heads or tails out of that thing.--ArchieVist (talk) 18:40, March 20, 2018 (UTC) Re: "Burrugast" article Hi Egwene: Thanks for the (as usual, great) feedback on Burrugast. I wasn't at all sure that I was doing things in line with what you have suggested before, but I made a stab at it. It's obvious that I'm still not completely clear on the concept(s). I'll go through my recent pages and edit them with your example at hand. You make it look so easy - but I daresay it isn't as easy as it looks : ) The "last seen" section was meant to be read as modified by "alive, together", but I see that that could be confusing. I like your approach much better, in any case. Your taking out the FoD section on the Burrugast page was a real breakthrough for me - I had it absolutely fixed in my mind that there HAD to be a FoD section for ALL of the named '14 Jaghut' because I KNEW that they were all alive at that point, somewhere...*sigh* I'll get there eventually! As for "Lasa Rook", the text never specified what she actually ended up doing. On the one hand, it seems clear that she had been doing the whole thing because she had been bored with her life at home, and had wanted an adventure - "It was just a game", as she cried - and because she wanted to shake up her husbands because she felt that they had been taking her too much for granted. On the other hand, it's clear that she was the type of woman who needed male protection, and wanted plenty of male attention. So it's difficult to imagine her just standing back and watching her three husbands and her lover abandon her. I can see her actually go with them as a result of sheer fear and desperation at being left completely alone so far from home - as a 'camp follower' of sorts. It's not as if she had much time to think things through at that point, or to find alternate Thel Akai 'protectors'/'admirers'. The third book of the Kharkanas trilogy may make it clear what she decided - or it may not, of course. Onward! Pcwrcw (talk) 01:55, March 19, 2018 (UTC) Re: "Sceptre" Hi Egwene: Thanks for sorting out Sceptre (title). That had actually been my first choice when I originally went to create the page, but when I used the 'Search' feature to bring up the 'red link', I found that, after one or two entries, there were listed 23 entries in a row relating to the ICE book, Orb Sceptre Throne. I became concerned that someone might confuse the word "title" with 'title of a book (OST in this case)' instead of a 'title of rank'. So I went with that - probably unnecessarily. Anyway, I agree with you that a disambig page for "Sceptre" was an idea whose time had most certainly come : ) I often overthink these things... Sorry you had to spend time editing the 'Akrynnai pages', thanks for that, as well. Having finished with the 'Fourteen Jaghut', I'm now back with the Barghast and the other tribals of DD. I really wish DD had been a more popular book - there is so much DD info on the wiki which is incomplete/incorrect/missing altogether. I will aim for the bare minimum that I think is essential (or until my patience runs out) and leave it up to others down the road to flesh things out if they think it necessary. Ever onward, Pcwrcw (talk) 01:27, March 29, 2018 (UTC) Re: Hobble Hi Egwene: I am toying with the idea of writing a page on the Barghast practice of 'hobbling' - it would be as unjudgmentally descriptive as I could make it. I would not include any mention of H's name, nor any mention of the DoD 'Q & A' TOR re-read post by SE on the subject. I would need a qualifying term, and I'm not sure what would be best: "Hobble (custom)"; "Hobble (practice)"; "Hobble (ritual)"; or...something else? I am also wondering if I should rename "Hobble" to something like "Hobble (Sub-Fist)", as well, to avoid future confusion. I can't believe that SE included "Hobble" as a proper name in the same book (DoD) as he introduced the practice of 'hobbling'. It may have been preying on his mind - which would not be surprising in the circumstances. ::Speaking of the Barghast, I just love Tehol's 'mistake' of calling the Barghast, "the Barnasties" - which I quoted in the Barghast "Quotes" section - if you've forgotten/missed it. Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 20:30, March 30, 2018 (UTC) Hi Egwene: Thanks for the Disambig page for the 'Hobbles'. I am working now on the Hobble (custom) page, which has proved less fraught and more interesting to research than I had feared. People focus on the hobbling of "H", but there is a surprising amount about the custom earlier than that in DD and there even turns out to be a somewhat analogous practice among the Barghast, intended for males, which involved a 'trial' of "shaming" and a sentence of castration. So the custom of hobbling, although it seems no less abhorrent than before, looks less overtly sexist. However, I have no doubt, although it is not so stated in the book, that female hobblings/rapes would have occurred more frequently than male trials/castrations. It helps that I had decided not to cover "H" in the article - that material cuts too close to the bone, even now. Thanks again, Pcwrcw (talk) 01:13, April 1, 2018 (UTC) Re: Sathand Gril, DD tribals, status report, etc. Hi Egwene: I think you've been doing a great job with Absi and Sathand Gril : ) I was completely surprised when I first read Satland's page - I've come across no incidences of "Gril" being spelled "Grit" in either TOR US HC or TOR US TPB - but those are the only editions of DD that I have access to. Frankly, I would appreciate it greatly if you would deal with the DD sections for Absi and the twins, as I can't seem to get anywhere with them. With Absi, Stavi and Storii done, that would finish off clan Senan - at long last. I'm currently working on the Skincuts, having finished Hessanrala and doing 'research' and rough drafts on Ralata. Then there will be the Gadra and Barahn of the White Face Barghast and Vedith of the Khundryl to flesh out where needed. I also need to add general information to the DD sections of the Barghast, White Face, and Khundryl Burned Tears pages, some of each existing already in some form of notes/rough drafts. I *think* that would finish off the DD tribals. I'm going to assume that the Malazans and Letherii have been taken care of, as they usually are popular pages for people to work on. I'll then do a minimal amount of nosing around and then I'll probably finish up with updating Ruthan Gudd, who needs both BH and DD material - for which I have already collected all the 'mentions'/citations in both books (and for CG, as far as that goes). Except in infrequent cases, I've left CG material to be done for when I "finish" with DD and go on to tCG ExtDP. The DD ExtDP has no currently existing 'red links', I - or other people, of course - have taken care of those. I'm glad now that I tackled the Hobble (custom) page. Looking for 'hobble' references in the rest of the book actually makes it clear that "hobbling" - in all its various nuances/meanings - was probably meant to be a sub-theme of DD and helps explain (broadly) why SE made the Barghast so 'nasty' - a valuable insight into the book which is unfortunately overshadowed by the "H" material. I agree with you about the lengthy length of the "User talk:Pcwrcw" page - thanks for the offer of help dealing with it. I think what I would like to do is to wait until I've finished with DD and then deal with it before tackling CG - I'll ask for help when I reach that stage. The end is actually in sight for DD's ExtDP - not imminent, you understand - but actually visible with the naked eye! Cheers, Pcwrcw (talk) 03:39, April 8, 2018 (UTC)